The recently published 7-year results of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 3 (PARTNER 3) trial showed no significant differences between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the composite outcomes of death, stroke, or rehospitalization.[1] Valve durability and functional outcomes were also similar between groups. However, pacemaker implantation, left bundle-branch block, paravalvular leak, and valve thrombosis occurred more frequently after TAVI. Notably, valve thrombosis was five- to sixfold more common after TAVI than after surgical AVR (2.8% vs. 0.5%), and paravalvular leak was reported in 17.7% of patients undergoing TAVI compared with 2.0% of those undergoing surgery. When interpreting these findings, it is essential to acknowledge the trial's methodological rigor, including meticulous follow-up, adjudicated endpoints, and standardized definitions. A Turkish proverb states that if the first button is fastened incorrectly, the rest will never align. Similarly, when the initial premise is flawed, subsequent conclusions-no matter how carefully constructed-remain fundamentally misaligned. The PARTNER 3 trial exemplifies this issue: Its foundational assumption was misplaced, and this misalignment permeates multiple aspects of the study design. The limitation lies not within the data themselves but within the conceptual framework that shaped their interpretation.